Make attributions consistent.

Also, fix a few spurious characters.

Consolidate copyright notices into single place.

Historically, this project used (more-or-less) a file-by-file copyright
inventory. This commit ends that practice. The project now has a
single toplevel copyright inventory, stored exclusively in
comprehensive-gpl-guide.tex (so that it appears also in compiled
versions of the Guide as well).

The side-effect of this commit is that the parts may no longer be easily
publishable separably without (at least) the additional work of
copyright notice reconstruction. This may in particular create a
challenge for the FSF, who has historically selectively published
sections of this Guide as materials for its CLE classes.

However, without this change, this Guide will eventually suffer from the
inherent problems in maintaining file-by-file copyright inventory.
Circumstances simply dictate a single, top-level copyright and license
notice for the entire Guide.

In addition to consolidation of copyright notices, I've also herein
updated my historical copyright notices to properly credit me for my own
work done in 2003 through 2005.

I've also updated the license notice to reflect the changes made by the
previous commit and related issues.

Citations of third-party works in appendix only.

As alluded to in 2ea19b71d4a917babb29024f06acabfe73309f40 's commit
message on 2014-12-17 19:52:15 -0500, keeping any information on a
part-by-part basis is difficult and error-prone, since there exists no
reliable way to auto-generate such information accurately.

Therefore, citations to third-party works, in addition to remaining
fully documented in the commit log as they always have been, are now
placed in specifically one location in the body of the text itself: a
single appendix specifically designed for that purpose.

In this manner, contributors have no house-keeping work regarding
citations. Contributors need only list third party works and links in
one place: third-party-citations.tex.

Documentation in CONTRIBUTING.md for making contributions of third-party
works is left as a TODO.

Wordsmith sentence after phrase "such software".

I think Fontana's change a few commits back which s/it/such software/ in
this sentence is a useful one. However, the entire sentence reads even
worse because "such software Free Software" looks so strange as a string
of words in the middle of the sentence.

This change is the best rework I could find that resolved the problem.
It's probably not the best option but is certainly an improvement.

Replace editorial commentary w/ FSF's link.

My personal comment here, which I wrote on 2003-05-26 (see
f05ce6c657e07a5e6c6def3f7ff8cb2b2bcf6246 ), is probably not particularly
useful. I still tend to use the phrasing as original stated in the
removed text herein; however, I'm admittedly the only one. I don't deny
that I hope to coin some terminology usage through my work on this
Guide, but this particular use of "nonfree software" to mean
"noncommercially proprietary" is not so important IMO that this Guide
must coin it.

The FSF's page on this doesn't make that distinction, and has much more
detail on this issue than this section does. Therefore, the
personal statement is removed, and the organizational statement on the
FSF's site is instead linked to.

Some editorial changes.

Commenting on one: the initial-caps stylistic preference for "Free
Software" (though it contradicts prevailing usage, including that of RMS
and the FSF) ought to be respected, but I think it is confusing to
capitalize the 'S' when referring to nonfree software as "non-Free
Software". So I changed this to "non-Free software" and also implicitly
acknowledged that the preference for "non-Free" over "nonfree" is the
editor-in-chief's stylistic idiosyncrasy.

Document work-around for 'next' branch rebases.

Upstream in the copyleft.org tutorial repository, the next branch is
sometimes rebased against the master branch. (For example, this occurs
when there have been quick fixes done on 'master' while new drafting
occurs on 'next'.)

This procedure, while convoluted, is the best way I've found to
compensate for this problem. Hosting sites like Gitorious really aren't
designed for rebased branches.

No instructions for 'master';just note possibility

Ultimately, users will probably pick either 'master' or 'next' to submit
changes anyway, so just leave the instructions to refer to 'next' and
note that they could replace 'next' with 'master'.

Detailed merge request instructions for Gitorious.

Most Gitorious users know this procedure, but it seems useful to
document it in great detail here, since copyleft.org seeks contributions
from those who might be knew to Git, and those who are more familiar
with procedures of other collaboration sites.

Note merge request should usually target next.

Some targets to master are acceptable, though.

Correct title and formatting.

There was a typo in the title and a stray comma.

move long parenthetical text out of short sentence

it's easier to read this way.

correct literal meaning of phrase

GPL protected code-bases don't demand industry trust, modern industry
trusts GPL protected code-bases.

Clarify sentence.

Make this sentence a bit clearer.

Remove spurious line.

This line was carried over as a paste from a previous version of the
paragraph above it, and is now no longer needed.

Make descriptions uniform.

Descriptions in this list should be uniformly worded.

Additional published work.

This publish work was also referenced in the old commit logs already,
but now that we have a list in the work itself, it can also be listed
here.

List missing co-author on this published work.

Karen Sandler was co-author of the work herein referenced, and was
accidentally left off the list of authors in an earlier commit.

Add hyperlinks to remixed published works.

Now that a list of published works is part of the document proper, it is
reasonably practicable to add hyperlinks to those works.

Provide additional href link command.

Add additional command that can be used in place of href where
appropriate.

Remove incomplete lists of authors entirely.

The lists of authors in each part has been continually out of date and
incomplete. There are multiple examples, here are a few:

* In September 2005, John Sullivan made improvements and was not placed on
the Authors lists until I did so in a March 2014 commit.

* In March 2014, Martin Michlmayr submitted many patches, but was not
placed on the Authors lists until I did so in an April 2014 commit.

There is no easy way to keep these Authors lists current, and they aren't
necessary under CC-BY-SA-4.0 anyway, so I herein remove the Authors lists.
Additionally, previous commit added "published sources" in each part, which
is more static and easier to keep up to date and provides similar
information.

List published works & link to Git logs.

References and details regarding these published works from which some
text was incorporated already appeared in the commit logs in great
detail. The information, already fully available in the Guide's Git
logs in full compliance with CC-BY-SA-4.0 §3(a)(1-2), now appears in
summary form additionally in the compiled PDF/HTML/Postscript output.

Reword paragraph; Include ref: "standard requests"

Mostly these changes are wordsmith, but I added a note that violators
should ask for the "standard requests" for compliance to be adequate.

Rewrite paragraph to fix better with section.

This paragraph was from text brought through from another document, and
as such, while this section was built "around it", the text itself was
stylistically different and otherwise problematic. This change brings
it into form with the rest of the document.

Reword mind-reading statements.

Merge requested proposed by @mlinksva has been changed slightly by
@bkuhn because there were changes to the README.md file since the
merge request was submitted that made some of the changes moot.

not all cc sharealike licenses are copyleft, so be specific
automatic relicensing is an exaggeration
cc by-sa case is even more nuanced, briefly mention in fn

In-page anchor links vs. bootstrap's fixed navbar

@keynote2k was the first to point out that the in-page anchor links in
the Guide failed to function properly, due to Bootstrap's fixed navbar.

This mixed solution of CSS and Javascript is the best solution I've been
able to come up with for the problem. The CSS solution is obviously
preferable, and is used herein for those anchor id attributes in the
Guide that have no href of their own.

Due to problems with using a pure CSS solution where the anchor includes
both an href and a id attribute. The Javascript solution is specific
for those cases. I took care not to have them both happen at once, as
they would undoubtedly conflict.

I did a inordinate amount of research about this issue. Bootstrap's own
page about the fixed navbar:
http://getbootstrap.com/examples/navbar-fixed-top/

doesn't discuss this issue at all, but there is a bug in Booststrap's
bugtracker:
https://github.com/twitter/bootstrap/issues/1768

which discusses the issue. (However, I don't understand why that bug is
closed, since none of the solutions I implement herein truly solve it).

The most useful page I found regarding this issue is this one:
http://nicolasgallagher.com/jump-links-and-viewport-positioning/demo

which offers several pure CCS solutions (each with drawbacks and
advantages). Unfortunately, none of those solutions consider the
question of anchor links that have both href and id attributes, and none
of them work properly in that situation.

Javascript to shift window for in-page anchors.

In my research about issues with in-page anchors, I found this code that
might be useful. More details once I've adapted it.

Correct URL: s/gpl-compliance-tools/copyleft-org/

The name of the Gitorious project was renamed at the launch of
copyleft.org. Therefore, the former URL is no longer valid.

Denver should be listed in authors section.

Denver wrote much of the ThinkPenguin CCS chapter and should be
so-credited as an author, not just merely in the copyright notice.

Quoted text seemed to prominent.

In the HTML rendered versions of the guide, the quoted text, using the
previous CSS herein include, seemed to prominent.

Hopefully, this change will resolve that issue.

Spell check and correction.

Seems there were a lot of correctly spelled words missing from the
LocalWords lists as well.

s/unknowledgable/uninformed/

I'm not even sure unknowledgable is a word, and uninformed does just as
well.

Replace "enforcements" with "enforcement actions".

I think this sounds better. While "enforcement" is a noun and therefore
it seems it should be "pluralizable", "enforcements" wasn't in my
dictionary as a correctly spelled word, and that made me realize I'd
never heard "enforcements" used in a plural before, and it immediately
sounded weird. So, I changed it.

Grammar and wording fix.

I think this sentence was improperly merged together with another one in
a previous commit and therefore needed correction.

Replace ’ with '.

The unicode ’ was introduced by the pasted text mention in the previous
commits. While I believe LaTeX can be configured to accept Unicode
quote equivalents, it seems simpler to me merely to replace the
character with an appropriate version that LaTeX expects in this
situation by default.

Integrate pasted text regarding LGPL.

Much of the pasted text here was useful. However, some of the claims
were broad reaching, I've reigned those in. (e.g., saying "Taken
together, these provisions mean:" was a bit strong).

Also, in that specific spot, the conclusions made in the text were
described as applying to LGPLv2.1, but are clearly conclusions about
LGPLv3. I've corrected that herein.

Finally, I had to write a bunch of next text to make the pasted text
work, and also added one FIXME for later of where things could be
improved further.

Link to copyleft.org on title page.

Often, the PDF file is separated fully from copyleft and distributed.
As such, the title page should not only include a link to the sources
for patches, but also for the main copyleft.org site for the Guide.

Pasted sentence usable as is.

I simply combined this pasted sentence with the previous paragraph; I
think it probably works as-is.

Incorporate pasted text re: AGPLv3/GPLv3 combos.

This text was mostly useful as is. However, it failed to make a key
point I've often made: that the combinations created by comingling
AGPLv3'd code with GPLv3'd code may be difficult to disentangle, and
thus in practice, it may turn out that such a combination effectively
must be licensed as a whole under AGPLv3, even if technically some
copyrights included therein are GPLv3'd.

In practice, this nuance is only a technical barrier, since complying
fully with AGPLv3 automatically complies with GPLv3.

Comment out text that may or may not be useful.

I'm not sure this text is actually useful, so I've commented it out.